Metsaomanike klassifikatsoonide võrdlev analüüs – näiteid Balti- ja Põhjamaadest
Laen...
Kuupäev
2016
Kättesaadav alates
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Abstrakt
Tagamaks paljude erinevate metsa funktisoonide toimimine on vajalik tunda selle ressursi haldajat või omaniku iseärasusi. Võib eeldada, et ajaloolistest põhjustest tingituna on erinevate piirkondade (näiteks Baltimaade ja Põhjamaade) erametsaomanikud omavahel erinevad.
Käesolevas kirjandusel baseeruval uurimuses, võrreldakse Baltimaade ja Põhjamaade erametsaomanike klassifitseerimise metoodikaid. Antakse ülevaade uuringute läbiviimise korraldamisest ja tulemustest. Lõpuks võrreldakse, lähtuvalt klassifikatsioonidest, omanike suundumusi ning erinevaid vaateid omandi suhtes. Ülevaate keskseks eelduseks on Põhjamaade ja Balti riikide erametsaomanike erinevus. Baltimaadest valiti vaadeldud uurimusse Eesti ja Leedu metsaomanikud ning Põhjamaid on kirjeldatud Soome ja Rootsi näitel.
Igas riigis jagunesid omanikud nelja või viite tüpoloogilisse gruppi ning eristusid üldjoontes saranased rühmad: aktiivsed metsamajandajad, mitmekülgsed metsamajandajad, väheaktiivsed metsamajandajad, loodussõbrad ning ükskõiksed metsaomanikud. Vaatluse all olevate riikide metsaomanike klassifikatsoonide tunnused olid üldjoontes sarnased ning võimaldas jagada omanikke gruppideks. Selgus, et Baltimaade metsaomanikud ei erine suures plaanis Põhjamaade metsaomanikest. Pigem võib arvata, et erinevused tulenevad uuringute erinevatest metoodikatest ja suundumustest.
In order to ensure the preservation of many different forest functions, it is necessary to know the peculiarities of the manager or owner of the resource. It may be presumed that due to historical differences, private forest owners in different regions (The Baltic states and the Nordic countries) differ from each other. This literature-based thesis compares the classification methodologies of Baltic and Nordic private forest owners. It gives an overview of how surveys are conducted and their results. Based on classifications, it finally compares owners’ dispositions and different views on property. The central premise of the overview is that Baltic and Nordic private forest owners are different. The research includes private forest owners from Estonia and Lithuania of the Baltic states and Finland and Sweden of the Nordic countries. In each country, owners divided into four or five typological categories and groups of broadly similar nature stood out: active forest managers, multiobjective forest managers, less active forest managers, nature enthusiasts and indifferent forest owners. The classification features of forest owners of the viewed countries were similar in broad terms and allowed dividing the owners into groups. The research revealed that forest owners of the Baltic states are not very different from forest owners of the Nordic countries. Instead, it is likely that differences are caused by different methodologies and directions of the surveys.
In order to ensure the preservation of many different forest functions, it is necessary to know the peculiarities of the manager or owner of the resource. It may be presumed that due to historical differences, private forest owners in different regions (The Baltic states and the Nordic countries) differ from each other. This literature-based thesis compares the classification methodologies of Baltic and Nordic private forest owners. It gives an overview of how surveys are conducted and their results. Based on classifications, it finally compares owners’ dispositions and different views on property. The central premise of the overview is that Baltic and Nordic private forest owners are different. The research includes private forest owners from Estonia and Lithuania of the Baltic states and Finland and Sweden of the Nordic countries. In each country, owners divided into four or five typological categories and groups of broadly similar nature stood out: active forest managers, multiobjective forest managers, less active forest managers, nature enthusiasts and indifferent forest owners. The classification features of forest owners of the viewed countries were similar in broad terms and allowed dividing the owners into groups. The research revealed that forest owners of the Baltic states are not very different from forest owners of the Nordic countries. Instead, it is likely that differences are caused by different methodologies and directions of the surveys.
Kirjeldus
Märksõnad
bakalaureusetööd, erametsandus, metsaomanikud, metsamajandus, eesmärgid, tüpoloogia, metsapoliitika